Arlington could have a "super meet" like Keeneland one day, but only when CDI shows some class and grace ala Keeneland, and truly cares more about the game than their corporate bottom line. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

You think Keeneland has a "super meet" for love of the game? They have a "super meet" so they can rake in simulcast revenue 10 1/2 months a year without paying any purses and increase their bottom line by only paying out purses for 6 weeks a year.....The purses are slightly higher for their "super meet" but nowhere what they should be for as little as they race and the hundreds of thousands they save in other areas by running basically two "super meets"

The purses are slightly higher for their "super meet" but nowhere what they should be for as little as they race and the hundreds of thousands they save in other areas by running basically two "super meets"

Saying Keeneland has "slightly higher" purses is an absurd statement -- their daily average of $580,000 *towers* over AP.

There are many economies of scale in running a racetrack, and my guess is that Keeneland isn't "saving" a dime by running only 6 weeks a year; the income from racing, year-round simulcasting and the sales can't possibly be enough to keep that place up, pay salaries, etc., all year long.

You think Keeneland has a "super meet" for love of the game? They have a "super meet" so they can rake in simulcast revenue 10 1/2 months a year without paying any purses and increase their bottom line by only paying out purses for 6 weeks a year

Actually, they have a super meet so they can can continue to be tops of horseflesh sales, by convincing people who bought horses at their sales that they can can win some inflated purses (and win races with stupid names for allowances) and get a big ego boost and think they got a great deal for the money they spent at Keeneland and come back next year.

Same principle as the utterly watered down and now meaningless Breeders Cup program.

loads of volunteers instead of paid employess work the keeneland meets

Yes, true...but that's for 6 weeks per year. The racing plant is open almost year round, and the grounds (rather expansive plot of land there, kiddies) require continuous upkeep, whether they are "live" or not.

yes i am sure it does require alot of upkeepi have yet to visit saratoga but keeneland is hard to beatmy only regret is the poly.the old dirt track wasn't the greatest either but just the sight of the poly takes away some of the beauty imo

Saying Keeneland has "slightly higher" purses is an absurd statement -- their daily average of $580,000 *towers* over AP.

There are many economies of scale in running a racetrack, and my guess is that Keeneland isn't "saving" a dime by running only 6 weeks a year; the income from racing, year-round simulcasting and the sales can't possibly be enough to keep that place up, pay salaries, etc., all year long.

You wanna bet who distributes more purse money over the course of a year Keeneland or Arlington? Keeneland races 6 weeks, Arlington races 5 months (21 weeks)......The daily purse distribution at Keeneland isnt 3.5 times what it is at Arlington......And the daily purse distribution is inflated because of the stakes races, which is a lot of money they dont even have to come up with because a lot of it comes from nomination and starting fees.....So you are saying other tracks who run longer meets dont have to keep up their facility when they arent racing? Its a lot cheaper to cut grass then it is to pay 100 people+ that you employ to keep a meet running.....Arlington would make WAY more money if they raced 6 weeks a year......Since almost every live meet anywhere is a losing proposition

The bottom line is and what you people dont have a clue about....is if every track ran 6 weeks a year there would be no horse racing.....or at least no horse racing for anyone but the super rich......owners, trainers, jockeys. grooms, etc couldnt survive racing 6 weeks a year

The bottom line is and what you people dont have a clue about....is if every track ran 6 weeks a year there would be no horse racing.....or at least no horse racing for anyone but the super rich......owners, trainers, jockeys. grooms, etc couldnt survive racing 6 weeks a year

So what? Horse racing USED to be only for the super rich. Would it be a problem if it went back to that? Why?

What you current day horse people don't get is that no one ever promised that being a trainer or a jockey or a groom would provide year round employment; the sport simply grew to the point that constant employment became an expectation...which isn't that far off from an entitlement.

Finally, make no blithe assumptions about what I do or do not "have a clue" about. I fully understand the economics of horse racing, at most all levels, and it's a brutal game -- one which I would never, EVER count on for income to feed and clothe my family -- even if I owned my own racetrack!

Those that are making it in this business with regular success have my utmost respect. The rest of you that are just skating by or losing every year, well, IMO you need your heads examined.

So what? Horse racing USED to be only for the super rich. Would it be a problem if it went back to that? Why?

I think he specified it would be a problem for the current participants who make a living in it.

Quote

What you current day horse people don't get is that no one ever promised that being a trainer or a jockey or a groom would provide year round employment

You know, I've always said the same thing about "professional horseplayer" as well as the more casual "guy who wants to make a profit" and continually complains about the takeout. No one ever promised them anything, either. That never seems to really go over all that well, for some reason.

You know, I've always said the same thing about "professional horseplayer" as well as the more casual "guy who wants to make a profit" and continually complains about the takeout. No one ever promised them anything, either. That never seems to really go over all that well, for some reason.

It's one thing to ask for something and get it; it's quite another to "expect" it. The latter is the entitlement mentality, IMO.

I certainly don't expect anything: I get what I get, and make my decisions from there. I can't speak for other horseplayers of any sort.

It's one thing to ask for something and get it; it's quite another to "expect" it. The latter is the entitlement mentality, IMO.

I fail to see how business owners and employees in any industry wanting to keep that industry alive and functioning as much as possible to maintain opportunities constitutes "entitlement mentality". The slots money, yes, that's entitlement mentality. But making a living from racing itself, no. We used to have just three TV networks, too. I doubt people involved in the much expanded TV industry of today consider themselves drawing entitlements.

I fail to see how business owners and employees in any industry wanting to keep that industry alive and functioning as much as possible to maintain opportunities constitutes "entitlement mentality". The slots money, yes, that's entitlement mentality.

And in horse racing, entitlements are all the so-called stakeholders talk about: "We need slots! We need VLT's! We need Poker Machines! Gimme gimme gimme, or our 'Central To The Universe' business segment will die!"

What rubbish.

Find me one credible source in the horse racing industry that thinks the game can stand on it's own two feet. (Or four feet, if you find that more appropriate.) We are not discussing a business segment that wants to compete fair and square -- horse racing folks by and large want their futures guaranteed.

And in horse racing, entitlements are all the so-called stakeholders talk about: "We need slots! We need VLT's! We need Poker Machines! Gimme gimme gimme, or our 'Central To The Universe' business segment will die!"

What rubbish.

Yeah but you're kind of changing the subject.

Quote

Find me one credible source in the horse racing industry that thinks the game can stand on it's own two feet. (Or four feet, if you find that more appropriate.)

I think the issue was meets of 6 weeks a year, and whether or not those could make money, and whether or not the participants could survive in that sort of environment.

I think the issue was meets of 6 weeks a year, and whether or not those could make money, and whether or not the participants could survive in that sort of environment.

Same subject, different day: there is always a *reason* why racing -- either the local product, or racing as a whole -- can't survive on it's own: "too little racing"..."too much racing"..."their purses are higher than ours"..."they have slots, we don't", and myriad other excuses.

I don't think there is a valid concern about whether Keeneland and / or it's racing participants can survive running only 6 weeks a year; they have been in business continuously for 75 years, so I think we can assume their business model works just fine. I counted 105 horses entered today (less actual runners after scratches, of course); I think they will hang on for at least another couple of weeks.

I don't think there is a valid concern about whether Keeneland and / or it's racing participants can survive running only 6 weeks a year; they have been in business continuously for 75 years, so I think we can assume their business model works just fine. I counted 105 horses entered today (less actual runners after scratches, of course); I think they will hang on for at least another couple of weeks.

Their business model works fine so long as they sell horses. If there's not nearly as much racing at other tracks, there's no need for all those horses Keeneland sells.